WHL rocks, on 18 October 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:
Really. I Didn't know Weber will be sharing his $13 million for not playing hockey this year with Burrows.
Do you think the NHL can continue to be viable without reducing the PAs share of revenue?
Do you remember when the Vanvouver Canucks were on the verge of leaving town because they were losing money? I do. In the Coliseum Canucks barely drew 13k.
Are you willing to see the Oilers, Sens, and Jets leave or fold when the US economy recovers and CAD$ is worth less that .70cents.? If so fine by me.
The players are replaceable. The NHL is not. Gretzky retired Ovechkin took over. OV faltered Malkin became the best player in the world. What happens if you don't have a team to cheer for.
Most people are short sighted and only think if Canucks. They wouldnt even watch hockey if Van City did not have a team
I'm a hockey fan not just a Canucks fan. It's better for all hockey fans that NHL gets a 50/50 deal and all teams are profitable, not just 40%.
Heck if I was Bettman I would not have blinked so quick.
Point by point...
Weber's salary means every other player on his team gets less. It also gets counted against the overall players' share so that when, at the end of the year, the numbers are crunched and players' final share is determined it will help determine if every other player in the league gets all of their salary that had been held back in escrow or if it will be returned to the teams.
The NHL is viable now because of the players. They generate the revenue and because of them the NHL has record revenues in one of the worst economies in over half a century.
Do you remember any other historical facts that are equally irrelevant to the current situation?
Honestly, I don't care if those teams leave or not. But they won't. Why? Because they're successful (or on their way to being) even without the increase in the Canadian dollar. And dealing with fluctuations in currency is a standard concern for international businesses, so I would hope that Canadian teams and the NHL as a whole are smart enough to have a proper business plan to deal with it.
Players are replaceable OVER TIME. It takes time to develop young players into big name stars with big name revenue producing potential. Otherwise, the Wolves would be worth as much as the Canucks. iPhones may be relegated to the technology archives 5 years from now, but today it's what pays Apple's bills. The players are the same. They will be replaced, over time. But today, they are what generates the revenue.
And your point is...? If we support our local team our opinions don't matter? That you're personally buying merch from every NHL team and a "Bettman" jersey to prove you're a super fan of the league and not just an individual team?
The NHL never got only 40%! Even under the previous agreement, they got 43% of final HRR, which was only certain revenue minus certain deductions (which, according to the NHLPA, put their actual share closer to 49% of actual revenue.) So please stop pulling numbers out of your arse. No one likes how they smell.
The players have always said they will go down to 50/50 (despite record league wide revenues), they just want it done gradually, without having make major other concessions in every regard, and without a redefinition of HRR which would limit their actual share even further than it already is.
If you were Bettman, we'd probably be exactly where we are now. In a lockout where no one is making any money.